The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East

Seminal, must-read works exist in literature, philosophy, and political theory. For example, can one study the Cold War without having read George Kennan or discuss ethics without having read Rawls? In that vein, anyone who seeks to defend a position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict needs to have read Caroline Glick’s The Israeli Solution (2013). In Part I of The Israeli Solution, Glick, a senior correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, examines the history and politics of two-state solution, focusing primarily on the U.S. since America with its military and financial resources is, for better or for worse, the central outside player in the conflict. Why does Glick call a two-state solution an illusion, a false-hope, a chimera? From Jimmy Carter on, American presidents have viewed solving the conflict as the key to peace in the entire region––from North Africa to the Fertile Crescent. “[M]ost American policy makers,” Glick writes, “share the view that the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would remove the principle cause of the violent extremism that afflicts the Arab and the larger Islamic world.” Glick disputes that thesis. Rather than consider the possibility that Arab leaders have concerns other than their hatred of Jews, American leaders have blindly sought to pressure Israel to swallow untenable peace terms thinking regional peace would ensue. Hopefully, that blinder has been removed from policy makers’ eyes by the rise of ISIS, the civil wars in Yemen and Syria, and the global spillover of the Shia-Sunni conflict, none of which stem from the lack of a Palestinian state. A Ninety-Year Failure The two-state solution was invented as a response to the unwillingness of Arab leaders to live along side the Jews who had returned to their ancient homeland. It has been presented as the basis for peace plans nine different times over the past nine decades, each time a failure. Worse, unquestioned adherence to this “solution,” has “weakened the U.S. position in the Middle East.” Each time the U.S. has put its reputation and resources into a two-state plan the outcome has resulted in the region becoming “less stable, more violent, more radicalized, and more inimical to American values and interests.” Why hasn’t the two-state solution worked? The primary reason the two-state concept has failed is, as Glick states, that the “two-state formula is based on the proposition that the root cause of the Palestinian conflict is Israel’s unwillingness to surrender sufficient lands to the Palestinians, rather than the Palestinians’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist and their continued commitment to its destruction.” Take, for example, Yasser Arafat’s walking away from extensive and foolhardy concessions forced upon Israeli leaders by Bill Clinton, including agreeing to shared sovereignty over Jerusalem. How did Arafat respond to Israel’s willingness to give him most of what he demanded? He launched a war of terror whose toll over two years exceeded seven hundred killed and four thousand wounded. Clinton devoted the last months of his presidency to trying to get the two sides to reach a final settlement. Yet he failed to understand that Arafat never intended to sign an agreement and only engaged in negotiations to strengthen his position at home and weaken international support for Israel. Arab Anti-Zionism and World Politics In Part I of The Israeli Solution, Glick reviews the careers of two men who played key roles in developing the notion of a Palestinian people––Haj Amin el-Husseini and Yassar Arafat. Husseini allied himself with Adolph Hitler and spent the war aiding the Nazis attempt to annihilate the Jewish people. No less heinous in his aims, Arafat used political warfare to cover up the terrorist campaigns he launched against Israel and its population. To further his aims, Arafat also turned to the Soviet Union, joining in their effort to weaken the U.S. internationally by defining the U.S. as a supporter of racist colonialism exemplified by the Jewish state. To label Jews the oppressor, Arafat and the U.S.S.R. sought to deny the fact that today’s Jewish population descended from the Jews of the Bible and attempted to reframe the historical and archeological record to undermine Jews’ claim to be returning to their homeland. American leaders unfortunately overlooked Arafat’s role in training other would-be terrorist groups, including Nicaragua’s Sandinistas, Germany’s Red Army faction, the IRA, and Ayatollah Khomeini’s Revolutionary Guard. Arafat’s techniques included airplane hijacking, bombings, ground assaults, assassinations, and even surface-to-air missile attacks against jetliners. Ironically, throughout most of his career Arafat paid little attention to the Arab refugees of the 1948 war or to those living under Israeli control in Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights, and Gaza. Only after local protests erupted in those regions in the 1980s did he see the possibility of using Palestinians in his war against Israel. Sadly, the U.S. helped finance that war and even trained Palestinian Authority soldiers some of whom used their new weapons to attack Israeli civilians. The Moderate Palestinian Leader No discussion of the two-state solution would be complete without focusing on Arafat’s successor, current Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas. Some have tried to paint Abbas as a moderate and a man with whom a peace settlement can be reached. Glick destroys that chimera as well, showing Abbas to be cut from Arafat’s mold as a man skilled in the use of diplomacy on behalf of his ultimate goal, which is to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. Abbas has waged war through the international press, the U.N., and NGO’s––while refusing to negotiate directly with Israeli leaders. As an example of how little interested he is in a two-state solution, Abbas spat in the face of logic by petitioning the U.N. to create a Palestinian state along the very boundaries his predecessors rejected in 1947. Amazingly, the U.S. has continued to put their faith in and finance Mahmoud Abbas despite his forming a political alliance with Hamas and despite Hamas’ having thrown the Palestinian Authority out of Gaza and killed or jailed many of its operatives. As an aside, it is important to understand what distinguishes Hamas from the PLO/Fatah. While Arafat and his mentor Husseini were Arab nationalists first and Muslims second, the founders of Hamas are Muslims first and foremost. To them, Israel stands in the way of the establishment of Allah’s kingdom on earth, and like all infidel nations, including the United States, Israel must be eradicated. U.S. Interests and the Two-State Solution Unfortunately, many Americans believe the U.S. support for Israel is largely a function of sympathy based on the destruction of European Jewry. As a result, they overlook the extent to which Israel advances and protects U.S. interests in the region. Further, they fail to consider the consequences were Israel to be forced to retreat to indefensible boundaries by ceding all or most of the Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians. An Israel reduced to pre-1967 borders would be vulnerable to being destroyed by jihadist militants attacking from Gaza and the hills of Judea. That would result in the U.S. being drawn into the conflict at who knows how large a cost in dollars and lives. Further, Israel would no longer represent the one stable, self-sufficient non-expansionist democracy in the region. By giving in to those who use terrorism to advance their aims, the U.S., were it to force Israel to give up Judea and Samaria, would be sending a message to jihadists across the globe that the U.S. will not stand up to terrorism and will not protect its allies when push comes to shove. Under Barack Obama, the U.S. has increased pressure on Israel to accept a two-state solution. In his “New Beginning” speech in Cairo in June 2009, Obama described the lack of a Palestinian state as ‘intolerable,’ and equated the Palestinian’s aspirations for statehood with those of the Jewish people. Notwithstanding the fact that the Palestinians as a distinct national group is a recent construct, the main reason the two-state solution won’t succeed Glick argues is that it has never been the goal of the PLO or its successors to live side by side a Jewish state. Evidence that their demanding a state of their own has functioned mainly as a component of their strategy to attack Israel in the international arena is the fact that they have walked away from the table each time Israel has accepted terms that would have led to a Palestinian state. Their true objective has been the destruction of the Jewish state as the so-called moderate Mahmoud Abbas made clear as recently as the 2013 anniversary of the founding of the PLO. The One-State Alternative Caroline Glick’s alternative solution is to incorporate Samaria, Judea, and Arab Jerusalem into the state of Israel. Israel’s legal claim to those territories stems from a 1922 resolution the League of Nations that defined the British Mandate as extending to the Jordan River. That boundary remains in force Glick argues based on United Nations Resolution 242 that stipulates all states have the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.” Recognizing that her solution will face fierce opposition, Glick examines each of the potential opponents and finds them wanting in terms of their ability to prevent Israel from formally declaring those regions part of the state of Israel. None of the Arab League nations are likely to go to war over the issue, Europe is already engaged in supporting the Palestinian Authority and Hamas in myriad ways, but Israel could tolerate more boycotts and other likely interference. The key to the one-state solution is the United States must support it. Glick makes a strong case that Israel’s staking its claim to the disputed territories would be in the best strategic interest of the United States. For one, Israel represents a counter-balance to Iranian and Russian ambitions in the region. In addition, Israel represents the only country in the region whose society is also modeled on the rule of law and democratic rights. The connection between the U.S. and Israel is one of people-to-people, while the U.S. relationship to other countries in the region is largely regime-to-regime. The price the U.S. would pay for backing a one-state solution would be more noise than substance. If U.S. stopped giving Palestinian and Arab leaders hope that we will appease them on the Palestine issue, we could deal with them more honestly on the conflicts I cited above. In terms of aid, it would eliminate the millions of U.S. tax dollars being used to prop up the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. Questions have been raised as to whether Israel would want to add the approximately 1.6 million Arabs currently living in the disputed territories to its population. Glick answers these concerns to my satisfaction, including the claim that the Arab population would eventually outnumber the Jewish population and win the war by having more babies than the Jews. She disputes Arab census and birthrate data and while she doesn’t discount the likelihood that there would be considerable problems, she argues the alternatives––continuation of the status quo, or giving Israel’s enemies a free hand to attack at will––are worse. There is a model for what would happen were Israel to shut down the Palestinian Authority and declare the disputed territories formally part of Israel. That model is the Golan Heights where many Druze who once vowed to resist Israeli rule today apply for Israeli citizenship. Over time the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria would see improvements in their living standards and economic well-being. They would learn to appreciate, as Arab Israelis have come to appreciate, the benefits of living in a society based on equal treatment under the rule of law and where one can accomplish legitimate goals without resorting to arms. Those Arabs who would not want to live in Israel would be able to move to Gaza, which would not become part of Israel, or elsewhere. Freed from having to focus on creating a Palestinian state in Israel, the U.S. could pressure Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the other Arab states to offer the Palestinians citizenship so they could move out of the refugee camps. The world also needs to free the Palestinian people from the autocratic rule of Hamas, the Fatah, and other terrorist groups. Palestinian nationalism should not be ignored, but it needs to find a home of its own and not look to what belongs by history and by international law to Israel and the Jewish people.

This may indeed be the most important book on Israeli policy published this decade. Well-researched with innumerable citations, Glick explains why the two-state solution proposed by the Oslo accords is a complete and utter failure. Glick furthermore sets out in terrific detail the legal proof of Israel's sovereignty to Judea and Samaria and explains why fully incorporating those portions of the Jewish homeland under Isreali civil law is the best solution for peace in the region. At the root of the conflict, Glick explains, is a jihadi mentality among Arabs committed to destroying Israel because they want the Middle East to be free of all Jews and Christians. Israel, as set forth in this book, is the ancestral homeland of only one people -the Jews, whose history and continuous presence there for 4000 years stands alone and is proven over and over again by historical documents and artifacts, which the Islamic Jihadis are making every effort to destroy and erase with the complicity of UNESCO. Modern day Israel derives from the mandate of the League of Nations which gave all of the Mandate including Hashemite Jordan to the Jews to settle. The UN recommended partition in 1947 but the Arabs led by Al-Husseini, who was Hitler's henchman, rejected partition. Jordan then illegally occupied Judea and Samaria. At the heart of this book is an analysis of the demographics of the region and a startling conclusion that PLO censuses of the area were false and that therefore incorporating Judea and Samaria into Israel would not affect the democratic character of it. That's all well and good but your blood will boil when you read in exquisite detail about the farce of negotiations with the PLO, the greatest con job in the history of the world. Israel at the behest of the US and Europe appeased the terrorists over and over again and no final agreement could ever be made because the terrorist Jihadi PLO will only accept a Jew-free Middle East. Nothing will ever be acceptable to the PLO but the ethnic cleansing of every Jew from Israel. They have never hid their goal but no one cares because they have succeeded in conning the world with smiles while never renouncing murder. It is an infuriating book to read because it lays out step by step the trap Israel and the West have fallen into in pretending that a two state solution will ever satisfy the PLO terrorists who are committed to ethnically cleanse Israel of Jews and have even made it a capital crime to sell land to a Jew. Appropriately one of the last chapters calls out Kerry for his Alice in Wonderland view of the region and his sick habit of justifying terror.

The Israeli Solution makes the irrefutable case that the two-state solution ignores the history of hostility to Israel’s existence by its neighbors and that it is a non-solution premised on demographic data that exaggerates the number of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza and falsely claims a population growth that out-strips growth in Israel. The historical case for Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is stronger than that for any other people. Saying that it's not a polemic, but rather a reasoned presentation of the history of the past 100 years there and an expert analysis of a war that has been waged against Israel for over 60 years. Too many Westerners ignore the fact that Fatah and the Palestinian Liberation Organization were led by Yassir Arafat before the Six Day War in 1967. The Palestine they wanted to “liberate” was all the land between the Jordan River and the sea that was held by the Israelis after the 1949 armistice temporarily ended the war against Israel. That war started with the invasion of Israel by five Arab armies. To argue for a retreat by Israel to the “1967 borders” (i.e. the 1949 armistice lines) is to impose upon Israel something never done to any previous victor who successfully defended against a war of aggression. Nevertheless that is the position of the U.S. State Department in the current administration. Article 22 of Fatah’s constitution written in 1957 imposes a duty to “oppos[e] any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine.” Thanks in part to tutelage from his Soviet sponsors, Arafat has successfully emulated the Communist “liberation movement” propaganda line used all over the world after World War II. Despite agreeing to do so in 1994 in the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians have never repudiated in any way that and similar provisions in Fatah’s constitution and the “charter” of Hamas. Israel is the one country in the Middle East that has a democratic system of government. The majority of Americans support Israel. Even if you are not part of that majority, you should get this book and read it. You will learn the history of the struggle for Israeli independence and its defense against a war of annihilation waged against it for over 50 years. As indicated by the title there can be a solution to all this, but it involves Israel rejecting the two-state paradigm foisted on it during the past twenty years. Unfortunately, it is a solution that will be possible only after January 20, 2017.

I have not finished reading the book yet. The rating is mostly based on the author's lecture on it. I bought the book because I heard the author lecturing about the book and it's premise and contents. I was moved by the author's lecture to consider what seems to be a shocking "new" suggestion to bring more peace than currently exists today. She seemed sincere and well informed. I am told she is a right winger. I do not consider my self one. I have visited Israel three times since the Spring of `66, two short stays and one three month visit in `69/`'70, which gave me a pretty unique chance to have seen Israel before the `67 Seven Day War, and then again not too long after. I don't know if her solution has a chance to be implemented, but having listened to her lecture and then take questions, some of which were hostile to her premise, I felt there was good reason to at least consider it. I know most Israeli's want peace, and that many Arabs/Palestinians do as well. I saw how these two communities interacted after the `67 War, and the opportunities that many Arabs in the Old City of Jerusalem encountered under Israeli control, and how many appreciated these changes. No matter what side of this issue you may be on, Glick's plan offers the possibility of more of these economic and development opportunities to any Arabs interested in them. I don't think it can be dismissed without a serious examination.

Anyone familiar with Caroline Glick's work knows she is a brilliant analyst and writer who can dissect an issue and then explain all its moving parts and angles with the precision of an engineer. If you aren't familiar with Glick's work, then you're in for a treat. And if you come to this book with skepticism, or contempt for what you think she has to say, then keep an open mind, because Glick has way more to say than what you might imagine. In THE ISRAELI SOLUTION, Glick offers a well-reasoned and fully-supported argument for why Israel should end its participation in talks aimed at creating a Palestinian state and, instead, apply Israeli law to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). She argues that by doing so, Palestinians living there will have the opportunity to embrace and enjoy the freedom and benefits of living in a fully functioning democratic society, and leave the suffering, fear and endless heartache of living under the "kleptocracy" and threats of violence of the Palestinian Authority (Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah). Before laying out her plan, Glick shows why the two-state solution has been the biggest foreign policy disaster in U.S. history. She presents the pros (many) and cons (few) of the one-state plan, and follows this up with analysis of possible outcomes and responses from various parties, including the Palestinians, Israel and her surrounding neighbors, as well as the U.S., Russia, and Europe. She presents the benefits that the different parties can expect from this one-state solution, too. Glick offers a plan of substance; nothing like the warmed-over, unrealistic and, frankly, ignorant b.s. that U.S. administrations have been pushing for the last twenty years. I wish everyone interested in the Middle East conflict would read this book. It offers an honest and sane approach to ending the conflict that might just work.

It is difficult to properly describe the style of this book- think of it as a history lesson with commentary and connected political ideas interspersed with the historical facts presented. Glick does an excellent job of summarizing the failures of Israel, the US, the EU, the Arab nations, and the PLO in forming a viable long-term peace. No party is extolled as a paradigm of virtue or left above blame; rather she correctly surmises that each entity is acting in what it perceives to be its own self-interest, even when the results of such action do not lead to the expected outcomes. Her proposed solution is novel and controversial, but her reasoning for her conclusions are well-founded and based on observable past actions on the part of the parties involved rather than the idealistic notions that have proven wrong so many times before. If you are interested in the history of Israel in particular, and Middle East policy in general, the historical backdrop of the book is fascinating. I suggest you keep a laptop handy while reading, as there are scores of references that are worth looking up for more detail- Glick has helpfully provided citations throughout the book. Maps and clearly marked quotations are included where appropriate. although it would have been nice if the publisher had made the aforementioned maps higher-resolution and allowed them to be larger. The book also provides some insight into many of the flawed processes that permeate the political world today; while the book focuses on Israel and the Middle East, much of the commentary could easily be applied to the rest of the political world as well. Do not expect to agree with all of the author's conclusions or opinions, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. This book was not written to heap praise on any one viewpoint or individual, and does not pull punches. If you have an open and inquisitive mind, the book is certainly worth reading- without doubt you will pick up some new facts, and will also be exposed to some critical thinking that may or may not align with your own. If on the other hand you prefer to be spoon-fed simplistic political soundbites that cause no discomfort or questioning of prior beliefs, you should probably avoid this book.

Caroline Glick has written THE book on the Mideast conflict. Meticulously researched and sourced, Glick completely demolishes the "two state solution" that has become the sacred cow of Mideast policy--both in Israel and throughout the world. Aside from the fact that a Hamas state overlooking its population centers would be an existential threat to Israel, Glick rallies overwhelming evidence to prove beyond any doubt that the Arabs don't actually want a second state and will never accept it--no matter how generous Israel's offer. Rather, the Arabs have learned to extract maximum concessions in round after round of talks, all while giving nothing in return. Thus, Israel has freed thousands of terrorist murderers, surrendered control of all the Arab population centers, etc. etc., all while the Arabs continue to teach their children to martyr themselves to take back "Palestine--from the river to the sea." Glick is weaker in arguing her case for offering citizenship to the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria. For instance, Glick doesn't underdtake a throrough analysis of the economic cost of such action. Moreover, Glick does not seriously address the possiblity of Israel annexing the territories without offering the Arabs full citizenship--or at the very least, denying them the right to vote for the Knesset. Such an approach has precedent throughout the world. For instance, in the U.S., residents of Peurto Rico and other territories aren't allowed to vote in federal elections.

This book is excellent, full of great ideas, and organized very well. I heard her speak and fully agree. Her point is that Israel must annex Judea and Samaria. I’ll write some more details later about the organization of the book. Meanwhile, here is justification for annexation. Russia’s annexation of the Ukraine was legal, and accepted by world governments. The U.S. also accepted this, for they placed very minor sanctions. Governments have always annexed territory. Throughout history, such annexation was done by war. For example, the Roman Empire grew by annexing the lands they conquered. The U.S. annexed Hawaii, and this was considered legal. No one says that someone born in Hawaii is not eligible to be president as Hawaii is not part of the U.S. In 1938 Hitler formally annexed part of Czechoslovakia called Sudetenland, saying there were 3 million Germans living in the Sudetenland. The world governments, such as France and Britain, accepted this. What happened is that the following year Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. The nations of the world did not accept this, and war broke out. Had Hitler been content with the Sudetenland, it is possible that the war would not have broken out. I was reading this in a high school textbook. Putin knows this history. If our high school students know this, then so does Putin. He knows that if he annexes the rest of the Ukraine or Poland, the world will not accept this and war will break out. Putin has no desire for war. Putin does not have the military to fight a major war. Therefore we can be confident that Putin will not do more annexation. He just wanted part of the Ukraine because of all the Russians living there. Israel must formally annex Judea and Samaria. The world will scream, but not do anything serious. The main problem facing us today is Iran, and the world will not let Israel’s actions take the focus away from Iran. Of course, if Israel tries to annex Lebanon, the world may take military action against Israel; however, Israel has no intentions to annex Lebanon. Just as Putin argued the large numbers of Russian speakers in the Ukraine justify annexation. Israel can argue the large number of Jews, citizens of Israel, justify annexation. People err thinking Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland caused the war. Wrong. It was Hitler’s annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia. Likewise, Russia’s annexation of Crimea will not cause war to break out. In a similar fashion, Israel’s annexation of Judea and Samara will be peaceful.

I would recommend reading this book to get a better understanding of the Israel-Palestine conflict and why each attempt to achieve peace have been unsuccessful thus far. It describes in detail how us foreign policy towards the Middle East have been complete failures and why it would be beneficial to the U.S. to revise it's middle eastern policy.

Le statu-quo au Proche-orient est devenu intenable, l'abcès palestinien empêche toute évolution et est soigneusement entretenu par certains états et organisations internationales. Plusieurs solutions existent, Caroline Glick se fait l'avocate de la plus logique, mais controversée, des solutions au problème palestinien: l'annexion de la Cisjordanie (Judée-Samarie) par Israël et l'octroi aux Palestiniens des mêmes droits civils et politiques qu'aux Juifs et Arabes israéliens et la création d'un état palestinien à Gaza, appelé à devenir le "Singapour de la Méditerranée orientale".

This is written by a lady who really knows what she is talking about. She was involved at a frontline level in the peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, and was a personal adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu. Now a journalist, her writing style is extremely readable and understandable, and is able to spell out the truth about the disastrous '2 State solution' that is being rigorously, and unsuccessfully pursued by US and Western governments. It is eye-opening about the level of deliberate ignorance and refusal to listen to the reality of the situation regarding the ideology that drives the Arab world, and even in the face of outright Arab/Palestinian declarations that they will NEVER admit to Israel's right to exist, therefore removing any platform for negotiation, the Western powers continue to pour money, political energy and appeasement towards a group of people who are as open to this as Hitler was to Macmillan before the 2nd World War! Brilliant book, must be read by everyone.

Like Danny Danon's work, this is a well researched and written work. I would highly recommend it. However the window for such a plan as this is swiftly closing. Even if a one state solution was implemented it would not change the attitude of many to Israel. The issue is Israel and its people will always represent an alternative reality to that of other peoples. A reality connected to the God of the Bible and this is the issue. If Israel is real (as it is) and its history is real and true (again as it is based on archaeological evidence) then that means that other histories are false. This is a foundational issue that will not go away, no matter what political avenue is tried. Israel's future and its continuance depends on the same factor as in the past (I AM).

Dieses Buch sollte jeder Politiker lesen der einen Meinung hat über die Israel-Palestinenzerfrage. Mit klarem Auseinandersetzung der Geschichte und nur Tatsachen - die meisten vergessen, oder - noch schlimmer - gar nicht gewusst werden. Auf English: ein 'Eyeopener'. Ich habe dieses Buch als Kindle-version gekauft und auf meiner Reise nach... jawohl, Israel, gelesen. Fabelhaft.